This isn’t true. Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess. John Piper and Wayne Grudem explained this back in 1991 in the preface to their seminal book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Piper and Grudem explain that their purpose is to push back against the evangelical feminists arguing that there should be no difference between the roles of men and women. However, they are largely sympathetic to the feminist position, seeing it not as rebellion but as the understandable pushback from thousands of years of Christian error (emphasis mine):

…these authors differ from secular feminists because they do not reject the Bible’s authority or truthfulness, but rather give new interpretations of the Bible to support their claims. We may call them “evangelical feminists” because by personal commitment to Jesus Christ and by profession of belief in the total truthfulness of Scripture they still identify themselves very clearly with evangelicalism. Their arguments have been detailed, earnest, and persuasive to many Christians.

What has been the result? Great uncertainty among evangelicals. Men and women simply are not sure what their roles should be. Traditional positions have not been totally satisfactory, because they have not fully answered the recent evangelical feminist arguments. Moreover, most Christians will admit that selfishness, irresponsibility, passivity, and abuse have often contaminated “traditional” patterns of how men and women relate to each other.

Note their adoption of the feminist frame via the claim that traditional marriage is contaminated by passivity and abuse. Here they are referencing their creation of the new feminist sin for wives (the sin of servility to husbands), as well as the feminist claim that traditional marriage is characterized by abuse of wives. They explain that their primary purpose is convince Christian feminists that complementarians have banished the errors of the patriarchal past. Complementarianism is a new vision that incorporates the best parts of feminism while retaining separate gender roles (emphasis mine):

But our primary purpose is broader than that: We want to help Christians recover a noble vision of manhood and womanhood as God created them to be -hence the main title, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Our vision is not entirely the same as “a traditional view.” We affirm that the evangelical feminist movement has pointed out many selfish and hurtful practices that have previously gone unquestioned. But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions.

We hope that thousands of Christian women who read this book will come away feeling affirmed and encouraged to participate much more actively in many ministries, and to contribute their wisdom and insight to the family and the church. We hope they will feel fully equal to men in status before God, and in importance to the family and the church. We pray that, at the same time, this vision of equality and complementarity will enable Christian women to give wholehearted affirmation to Biblically balanced male leadership in the home and in the church.

This is not a call to end feminist rebellion, because they are largely sympathetic to feminism. When complementarians encounter the most overt feminist rebellion they go to laughable extremes to deny feminism and blame men and men alone. This is a plea to Christian women in rebellion to come back without fear of having their feminist sensibilities challenged. You can almost hear the music playing in the background as Piper and Grudem wrote the preface:

Baby come back! You can blame it all on me!

I was wrong, and I just can’t live without you!

A bit further down they reiterate that they have coined a new term in order to avoid what they see as the stigma of traditionalism:

A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggests both equality and beneficial differences between men and women. We are uncomfortable with the term “traditionalist” because it implies an unwillingness to let Scripture challenge traditional patterns of behavior, and we certainly reject the term “hierarchicalist” because it overemphasizes structured authority while giving no suggestion of equality or the beauty of mutual interdependence.

This is the origin of the term from the founders of the CBMW, one of the two flagships of the complementarian movement*. The other flagship of the movement is The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded by D.A. Carson and Tim Keller. Here is women’s studies professor Mary Kassian explaining the origin of the term at TGC:

Though the concept of male-female complementarity can be seen from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years. It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—-a concept first forwarded and popularized in evangelical circles in the 1970s and 1980s by “Biblical Feminists.” I’ve read several articles lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting 25 years ago where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the word’s definition.

Kassian emphasizes that the term is designed to conserve the progress of the 1960s:

2. June Cleaver is so 1950s and so not the definition of complementarity.

In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.” Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

*These two groups aren’t entirely separate, as there is much overlap among the major movers of these organizations. John Piper is featured in the TGC overview video, and Mary Kassian is a member of the CBMW Council.

144 Responses to Supplicating to rebellion

At first glance this seems to me to be an excellent example of the Hegelian dialectic in action. The Complementarians are trying to have their cake (claim to follow Scripture) and eat it too (not offend Feminism).

You know, this all has made me quite the reactionary. What the heck was wrong with June Cleaver to begin with? She’s a role model to my wife and it makes me proud.
It’s disappointing to see that Grudem is behind so much of this; he’s a capable theologian on other fronts.

Donal, you are being too imprecise with language to form a cogent argument.

Each of us must decide for ourselves, based on our imperfect understanding of God’s Word, whether a particular theological argument is accurate. Because nobody’s understanding is perfect, I would suggest it is safest to assume that any given theologian is neither accurate on every topic (due to their imperfection), nor inaccurate on every topic (due to our imperfection).

Tangentially, this is why I believe the modern church model is fatally flawed, as it tends to produce ignorant and mentally lazy churchgoers, who largely accept, uncritically, what they hear from the pulpit.

“But we hope that this new vision-a vision of Biblical “complementarity”-will both correct the previous mistakes and avoid the opposite mistakes that come from the feminist blurring of God-given sexual distinctions.”

How about we just read what the Bible says and call it biblical marriage? Why do we need a new vision for marriage? Did the feminists figure out something God or St. Paul forgot to mention?

“Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism.”

I can’t remember who it was, but some heathen blogger once wryly observed that “feminism and Christianity mix together about as well as it does with satanism.” So sad that unbelievers get this because they aren’t clouded by the issue.

It also reminds of an Internet meme where a little girl tells her mom “I want to grow up to be a feminist.”

In your fantasy land post that you liked to, I chucked at the following line: “The Bible teaches us that women are more easily deceived.”

I’ve been amazed at how easily a woman can be deceived by an obvious load of nonsense from one man, but then on the other hand be highly skeptical of the motives of their husbands.

I see this in great doses when it comes to sex. The devil whispers “he loves, you, you are free, etc.” into the woman’s ears when it comes to sex outside of marriage, and whispers “he’s using you don’t be a slave” into her ears when it comes to her husband. Complementarians exacerbate this, as they are more likely to warm women about submitting to husbands than about succumbing to PUAs. In fact, a woman tempted to have an affair is more likely to buy a book on Dr. Harley’s “Plan B” than one telling her “do not eat the fruit of that tree.”

As Emerson Eggrichs said during a Love and Respect conference I attended: “wives are being turned against their husbands, and a lot of money is being made.” Far more profit in indulging in vices than healthy solutions.

What about those tradcons socons charismaticuckservatives that are at the root of the trouble?
I know the distinction, I know the answer to my question. I do not actually believe Ive caught an inconsistency Dalrock. I am saying, however, that if we can speak of traditionalism in a positive light in this context we could do the same with the suffix of the coined term tradcon. We could recognize a distinction.
Inexplicably (for me) I doubt there would be comments made in this thread using the term traditionalist that are analogs to those made in the other threads using the term conservative. There is learnin’ can take place by pondering why that is.

Side note, Dalrock do we need to be praying for your day job to be restored? You have been extra prolific. (jk…….keep on typing man, its an outstanding streak you are on)

Wow, thank you for the clarification. That is one insidious word-spin.

I thought it was either/or – The man is either in authority or not.

I should have guessed that the matter was infected with deception and double-speak. The first comment, from Donalgraeme, nails it pretty good.

I’d love to have a better term than “traditionalist” but I guess its fine. It’s deliberately been framed as a word of negative connotation.

I would note that before Yashua, God’s people Israel had extensive tradition. It was directed by God and was there to preserve them and honor God. When they deviated from their traditions, they ended up sacrifcing children to molech in Gehenna. Traditions from God protect and preserve. They please God and indicate faith.

As we cast them off, we head for the eternal Gehenna.

God help us when His own people deviate from His order.

May we fall on our faces in repentance and weep for our sins. It’s the only way back.

While I agree that none of us can have perfect understanding of the Lord and his Plans, my being wrong about an interpretation of scripture doesn’t mean the person I’m arguing with is right. We can both be wrong.

Forget “traditionalism”, that word has been hijacked/goal post moved. BRING BACK THE PATRIARCHY! Move the goal post for the word “patriarchy” from something bad to good. Do it by owning it and not being afraid of the word and the negative connotations that come with it.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Why all the hate for June Cleaver? She’s an attractive, well-mannered woman, and the worst you can say about her is that she devotes the majority of her time and effort to serving her husband and sons and building a good home for them to live in. But ugh, traditionalism!

If the complementarian women find June abhorrent then they shouldn’t be surprised that the men no longer have any desire to provide for a wife and be a responsible husband. That’s what Ward Cleaver does! And Ward Cleaver is so 1950s and so not the definition of complementarity. A post will follow on how the definition of complementarity can allow for a man to be a Jax Teller husband where he engages in dangerous and often illegal pursuits to put food on the table while banging an occasional floozy on the side when the wife’s in a bad mood. There’s probably even a comparable precedent in the Bible for it!

Dalrock – Complementarianism is a term coined a little over twenty five years ago by Christians who wanted to preserve what they saw as feminist progress while avoiding what they saw as feminist excess

I too had been under the impression that the term had been co opted. This explains a lot about what I saw as contradicting literature from CBMW.

Grudem did an outstanding job of refuting the feminist arguments for female clergy, yet most other writings from CBMW promotes feminism in other areas. At first I thought that Grudem may have different views then others on the council. Now I see that they have all swallowed the feminist kool aid. What a shame.

Where in the Bible is the state given any authority on marriage or deciding the custody of children?

With modern marriage, this whole talk of “complimentary” marriage by SonCons and TradCons is a subterfuge. The husband is never truly the head. The state is, because it can break the marriage up upon his wife’s command without his consent. Unless the church is prepared to condemn the state’s intervention in marriage and its usurpation of the man’s role, all this talk about complimentary/egalitarian nonsense distracts from the menage a trois/threesome it really is. Once you get the state out of it, the other problems can get resolved more easily.

You know what would be an interesting exercise? Go through the books of the bible and look at the interaction between the married coupled (starting with Abraham and Sarah) and do a “This is what it would have looked like with modern values” scenario.

“Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.”

How does that even make sense? The Complementarian ideal can be applied to every time and culture but it looks different now than it did 70 years ago? wtf.

Feminists hate June Cleaver because she is the embodiment of superior femininity. She has a perfect home, a husband who adores her and pays for everything, and nice kids who are a credit to her 1337 skillz in the bedroom and kitchen.

If I read you correctly, you’re complaint is that Dalrock extensively source-quoted what Piper et al said and what they’ve said about their terminology. Either you read the original post wrong or you’re a blind fool. Which is it?

Ha! I thought you might have something to say on this part of the topic. I think the problem is that as most commonly used traditional conservatives are like a sea anchor. They aren’t moored to anything solid and therefore are a reflection of where we were some time in the recent past (20-30 years). Back in 1991 I think it is fair to say that the tradition they were talking about (and rejecting) was pre second wave feminism. This explains the obsession with June Cleaver. At the same time, they clearly wanted to reject tradition while seeming traditional. 25 years later what is now considered traditional is what Grudem and Piper were proposing as a replacement for tradition when they wrote the preface.

Dalrock:
Thanks for this posting, it connects up some strangenesses for me, such as why The Gospel Coalition has claimed to be totally conservative Christianity while nevertheless hewing very closely to conservative feminism. Piper and Keller surely do show up a lot in Protestant circles, dragging their pedestals into a lot of places.

Empathalogicalismgasm:Wait…..so…..traditionalism is good?
What about those tradcons socons charismaticuckservatives that are at the root of the trouble?

Which traditionalism, Empath? I can easily find conservative churches (Bible based, no lady preachers) that regard Piper and/or Keller as the finest in traditionalism. They might not explicitly buy into the whole Complimentarian fashion, but by watching what they do rather than obsessing over what they say I can figure out which traditionalism they are following.

Are they part of the problem, or part of the solution? How could we test that?

Or I can turn to the Roman church where a recent Pope pretty much pedestalized all women in an encyclical. Please, I’m not picking a religious fight here, I’m just going by what I can read for myself. Which of these forms of traditionalism is so great? Or I can go to the Southern Baptists and ask them, but I think Dalrock has pretty well exposed that version of traditionalism as being equallly feminized, what do you think?

Maybe it’s some kind of Platonic traditionalism, the ideal that exists somewhere as an abstraction that we can all appeal to?

So right back atcha, big guy: of the multiple traditionalisms to choose from, which one are you writing about? I think I’ve asked you this question a time or two in different forms, and you never seem to quite be able to point to a real, live, exemplar of the traditional conservatism that you insist is really out there. It’s like when Dalrock asks “Where are the churches that won’t tolerate divorce?” and not many answers come back – what conclusion should we draw from that?

Shucks, Dalrock, I shoulda just waited for you to reply to Empath and kept my fingers off the keyboard.

The other year I wandered onto a site called Mortification of Spin which claims to be “confessing evangelical”, it seems tied in to TGC somehow. They are all about Complimentarity, and as horrified by Teh Patriarchy as any 3rd stage Feminist would be. Which likely makes them conservative feminists…but why not, it’s the traditionalism that they probably grew up with, if they are GenX or Millennial.

My understanding of ‘complementary’ is as Solomon’s. Male and female distinct and acting in complement under Scriptural marriage. Original marriage covenant.

But I’m not surprised the term got co-opted by self-anointed ‘pastors’ to mean the opposite of what it’s supposed to. Doubtless some enterprising persons named their own movement after it! Guess they’re pretty special and important and don’t really need Jesus. Anyway thanks for pointing out who they are and how they operate.

My suggestion is that folks in the Christian Business find something different to do.

How does that even make sense? The Complementarian ideal can be applied to every time and culture but it looks different now than it did 70 years ago? wtf.

Exactly.

Basically what she is saying is that “as times change, what it means to be the head and what it means to submit also changes” — basically the culture determines everything other than a very rough conception. It turns everything on its head and makes the culture determinitive within very broad Biblical guidelines that are ultimately determined, in terms of brass tacks, by the culture. This is the essence of feminist Christianity — “Christianity must stick with the times and the times have changed, and so this is what the Bible means *today*”.

No tradition whatsoever. The absolute, abject hostility, outright hatred, for tradition is straight-up post-modernism, whether you cross-dress it in Biblical verses or not.

Back in 1991 I think it is fair to say that the tradition they were talking about (and rejecting) was pre second wave feminism. This explains the obsession with June Cleaver. At the same time, they clearly wanted to reject tradition while seeming traditional. 25 years later what is now considered traditional is what Grudem and Piper were proposing as a replacement for tradition when they wrote the preface.

Precisely right.

One way of describing this is as a kind of “Overton Window Christianity”, whereby even self-styled “traditional” Christians feel that they must remain within the cultural “Overton Window” (for those not familiar with the term, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window ) in order to remain relevant and not seem like they are “totally out there kooks”. The trouble, of course, is that when you hitch your Christian doctrine to a cultural Overton Window, it’s the culture that becomes one of your principal hermeneutics, rather than something like, oh, tradition which predates the current cultural Overton Window, and is now no longer culturally acceptable (that is, lies outside today’s cultural Overton Window). In short, this is a kind of Christianity which actually fairly openly (at least in Kassian’s text) is culturally determined, in order to remain within the “culturally acceptable” realm.

This is obviously extremely far removed from the historical Christian experience (the Church having started outside the Overton Window), but I suppose it’s what can happen when Christianity becomes the dominant culture and becomes associated with the Overton Window (even determining it in some ways, in the past) — that can be a hard association to shake, even when the Church becomes the tail that is being wagged by the cultural dog, as we see here.

Looking Glass“Complimentarians” = “We’re not THOSE types of Christians” with respect to Gender Roles.

DING!

I”m stealing…except for one word, “Gender”. I’m done with that word, except when discussing languages. It’s “Sex roles”, because there’s two sexes (not 40 or whatever number the social media channels are claiming).

“This is the origin of the term from the founders of the CBMW, one of the two flagships of the complementarian movement*. The other flagship of the movement is The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded by D.A. Carson and Tim Keller. ”

Maybe it’s just me but I’m starting to get confused by the Scumbag Parade. All these people and their orgs, movements, and so forth, like some vast spider. What’s sad is that they’re so popular.

Perhaps a flow-chart? Like LE or military, with the little boxes, pictures and names? OTOH it could crash wordpress.

Politics is not the point of this site but the off repeating saying that conservatives just seek to hold onto the past is bunk. The intellectual history of conservatives is rich and well anchored to very deep and philosophical ocean bedrock The practice of conservatism or its political party is as messy as the implementation of any high ideas hitting the real world is – just as for every other idea vs reality. These distinctions may be diversions for most but in an era of the wholesale rejection of ideas for irrational populism it is important to remember most people have no idea what they are rejecting intellectually.

KevinPolitics is not the point of this site but the off repeating saying that conservatives just seek to hold onto the past is bunk. The intellectual history of conservatives is rich and well anchored to very deep and philosophical ocean bedrock

Please point to some of the intellectual history of conservatives, I’d like to see this ocean bedrock.
Because all I’ve seen for years is a sea-anchor effect, where the liberalism of 1975 becomes the conservatism of 2000.

Unless you’re confusing words with actions? I’ve read some of Russell Kirk, for example, and there are supposedly Kirkians in various conservative groups, but somehow none of Kirk’s ideas ever make it into law. Instead we get things like VAWA…

@Kevin
Their position now is progressivism 30 years ago. Given this fact its clear they did not hold the line as the cuckservatives of “completementarians” demonstrate. And other cuckservatives that seem to be deeply triggered by trump.

“You are taking the most hostile interpretation of Piper et al. possible, but it is not the only one. Sorry, try again.”

You first. Your hostility will (finally) be met with hostility in kind. It took awhile for us to finally convince ourselves that your hostility is genuine and not inadvertent, and that doubt has been no benefit to you. If you wish a different response, bring it.

“The absolute, abject hostility, outright hatred, for tradition is straight-up post-modernism, whether you cross-dress it in Biblical verses or not.”

Escoffier is the authority on this subject, but I believe you’re referring here to Modernism proper. Post-modernism likes to fool around with tradition on the down-low (i.e. hipsters), with some even falling head over heels these days.

“Complimentarianism” has a certain fakeness about it. It is contrived doctrine, an attempted compromise of biblical and feminist viewpoints. I recall that this teaching was very popular when I was a young man and just after I married.
Why, though, was it popular? Clearly it isn’t Biblical. Clearly it is an accommodation / compromise between worldly and Christian views. Clearly it hadn’t been rebuked as the heresy it is.

I think this doctrine was popular because it was a way for women and men in the church to be able to justify extramarital sex tacitly. This tacit approval was to either assauge guilt over pre / extramarital sex in either members or new converts. As it turned out, the collective doubling down on this doctrine has landed us in the state we are currently in.

This is a particularly enlightening post. I knew Piper had written on complementarianism before, but I didn’t know he and a few others had actually coined the term or come up with the doctrine. I also didn’t know they had contrasted complementarianism with traditionalism. I always thought these were the same thing and didn’t quite understand Dalrock’s earlier posts going against the doctrine of complementarianism. Now, things make more sense, and I’ll be more attentive when reading about complementarianism.

One drawback to this new perspective, however, is that I can’t just be content that someone touting complementarianism isn’t a full-on feminist or egalitarian. I’ll even be finding fault with their semi-feminist beliefs. It’s kind of like how after reading this blog I can’t be content that someone is making movies with a Christian theme (e.g. Fireproof, War Room). I’ll be finding fault with the stories there, too.

The problem with tradition is identifying the tradition that created this mess. It’s actually quite simple, it’s when the church decided over a millennium ago that Genesis 2:24 got it wrong and it isn’t that *man* who initiates marriage. No, the church is the only one that can do that. When did that happen? Between 500 and 800 AD.

So… if complementarianism is just a look-back to recent tradition, what do we call the real Biblical model of marriage? Judging from the comments, it would be patriarchy. Judging from the feminist response to the word patriarchy, I say it’s a great descriptor.

People talk about wanting the patriarchy but actually, nobody wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole because it’s so anti-traditional. Case in point- in Matthew 19 when the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked what the grounds for divorce were He quoted Genesis 2:24, the authority to initiate marriage, saying “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In other words, it isn’t that there are no grounds for divorce, there is no divorce. The Pharisees said Oh yeah? Well why did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? Jesus corrected them and said ‘For the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it was not this way.”

So, twice we see Jesus pointing to the authority to initiate marriage and He’s pointing to the fact that it didn’t include the authority to terminate it. But, Moses did, so He explained that the part where Moses said “if a man does not find favor with his wife because he has found some indecency in her” that he can give her a certificate of divorce and send her away. He said if any man divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, it isn’t a legitimate divorce (that’s where the adultery part comes in… she’s still married because the divorce isn’t legitimate).

So it shouldn’t surprise anyone when Jesus popped in at 1st Cor. 7:10-11 and said that for married believers, no divorce. Instead of an exception for sexual immorality, the only exception is when the Christian is married to the non-believer who refuses to dwell with them (Try to find me a church that holds to that line of doctrine) But that’s just the first step on the patriarchal trail.

Look hard at Genesis 2:24 and you’ll see that not only isn’t there any authority to terminate the marriage, but there is no limitation on the authority to initiate marriage. In other words, it isn’t limited to one wife. But, the church jumped in without authority and said “No, that’s wrong. Monogamy only.” In doing so they violated Deuteronomy 4:2 by both adding to and subtracting from the Law… but they didn’t care. More importantly, women loved it.

By completely ignoring Exodus 22:16-17 they had to create a whole new category of sins called ‘premarital sex’ and insist on marriage ceremonies to grant their approval to the marriage and they also invaded the family, usurping the husband’s authority and even regulating the marital bed with all kinds of crazy rules. Another huge violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, but they didn’t care because what they were doing was creating feminism and women loved it.

At every step along the way the church usurped the authority of men, taking their power to “rule over” their wives, and in the process implementing lots of rules and regulations designed to create conflict within the marriage so the church could step in as the authority figure to solve the problem. And guess what? Women loved it.

Patriarchy is all about the fundamental issue of is who has authority to begin the marriage and that’s the man. That’s Genesis 2:24. The next step is the authority structure, and that got settled just a bit later with Genesis 3:16: “he shall rule over you.” Every single attack on the headship of the husband is an attack on the curse. Where did 1st Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-24 come from? The curse: “He shall rule over you.”

So, you want patriarchy? God created it when He cursed the woman to be ruled over and put the man in charge. Patriarchy gets you marriages that don’t depend on a third party solemnization because having sex with the virgin means you married her. If you did it by going to see her Dad first and getting his permission, having sex with her seals the deal. If you do it without getting Dad’s permission, having sex with her seals the deal but Dad may not be real happy about that and exercise his authority under Numbers 30 to annul the marriage.

Patriarchy? Read Numbers 30 to understand patriarchy.

Jesus pointed out that the authority to initiate marriage didn’t include the authority to terminate the marriage, but by the same token it didn’t limit the authority to initiate marriage either. Oh, My God! There goes monogamy as the only true marriage.

And that bag of bull the church was selling about premarital sex to support the idea *they* were in charge of marriage? It doesn’t exist. Nail the virgin and you marry her. On the subject of extra-marital sex with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman? *Crickets* (and that includes the New Testament too). The big change between the Law and the NT was that under the Law, there was no prohibition on using prostitutes (OT dread game?) but with the NT we got a prohibition at 1st Cor. 6:15-16. Funny thing is, why did Paul limit that to only prostitutes? God didn’t prohibit extra-marital sex (except for adultery) in the Law and Paul only changed that to prohibit the use of prostitutes.

It’s stuff like this that truly reveals the power of tradition. Search the Scripture and you’ll see that the prohibitions are not there. So, did God forget? Did He get it wrong? Something must have happened that made the church jump in and fix things, right? And isn’t it interesting that the 7 churches that Christ commanded John to write to didn’t include the church at Rome. Maybe He’d already removed His lampstand from Rome. That would sure explain their behavior down through the ages.

Adultery requires a married woman. No married woman, no adultery. So, if a married man has sex with the widow down the street, it isn’t adultery. If he gets in bed with the virginal babysitter, guess what? He has another wife! According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13 neither is a sin. According to Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 it might be a sin for some people, but that’s an individual issue of conscience and we are commanded not to judge.

No, I think most of the folks here don’t actually want patriarchy because God is apparently not nearly as conservative as a lot of people would like for Him to be.

In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men.”

“Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.”

If the face of complementarity changes why then is June Cleaver called a tradional and not a complementarian?

I think part of the reason complementarianism is so powerful is because it focuses on the wife, who the bible says is easier to deceive, and the husband will submit due to his natural desire to please his wife. Remember the fall: the serprent deceived Eve, and Adam followed to please HER, not himself or the serpent.

It is much easier to convince men to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing than it is women. Men in general will stay on a sinking ship for women and children just because it is honorable. I can’t think of a parallel where women in general would do the same, individuals perhaps, but exceptions not rules.

The sad thing is, the biblical commandments to wives are actually very beneficial to wives. They want the protection and resource that come with marriage, and biblical wives are more satisfied, despite hollywood portrayals to the contrary.

It’s akin to a man’s relationship with God. Loving and respecting God is highly beneficial to the man, even if he mistakes it for constraining.

I see that Pastor Saeed has finally spoken in public as to his wife’s accusations and conduct and by way of a press statement at Spiritual Sounding Board. His public response struck me as both dignified and restrained yet, he, as a good christian, concedes some truth as to his failures as a human being and – to my mind – by conceding anything at all concedes too much ground to his wife. I can only presume that the press release has been written with the assistance of lawyers.

The comments underneath – and remember those commenters know no more than any of us – have found him guilty and without any mitigating circumstances or the chance of parole. It is curious to reflect (yet again) how in the court of popular opinion a person can in the blink of an eye – as has Saeed Abidini – go from hero to zero; from a man to be admired and prayed for to a man more or less in league with Satan. That at least is the opinion one gains from the comments.

Perhaps some Dalrockians will feel motivated to add a comment themselves in support of Pastor Saeed and against the feminist and mangina rabble baying for his on-line blood. Those people have the nerve to claim to be Christians!

Perhaps some Dalrockians will feel motivated to add a comment themselves in support of Pastor Saeed and against the feminist and mangina rabble baying for his on-line blood. Those people have the nerve to claim to be Christians!

On it.

Opus, I realize it’s surely beneath you to rub shoulders with the twitter rabble, but if you deign to join under a false pseudonym, I’m @herbiemarcuse. Trolling feminists can be cheap fun, and there is no shortage of soft targets.

I knew you expected my comment and I assumed your response. I do not have the deep seated issue that say AR seems to think.

AR you misunderstand me…..IOW, You are not listening to meeeeee. If we keep at this a few weeks maybe one can break the cyber dishes and get through to the other.

Of course there are tradition(s) to choose from, traditionalisms to choose from. Of course 1978 my seem traditional to one while 1950 is to another and so forth. Even within those it subsets further. The simple point is that the same can be said for conservatism. Conserve what> Conserve when?

The basic point is the last one in that comment. Now that there are lots of comments, do note that there have been no bursts of invective anywhere near those that would be here had the word traditional been the word conservative, yet I agree they both have a problem with fluidity of meaning and, more importantly, they both have the problem of being labels that can easily be hung on clueless blue pill Christian men as they keep digging while in the hole.

Why do you, AR, think there is a relative dearth of vitriol about the word traditional as compared to the reliably thread derailing vitriol for the word conservative. Conservatism becomes the topic when it is part of the set up of any topic. For the few people who even bother to make thoughtful remarks that deride (deservedly) the conservative cohort they are after there are 10 to 1 the number of people who just toss invective.

On traditionalism……crickets in this regard.

The answer is simple. We, the loose collective here, all oppose the specific socon/tradcon/moron. That same collective surely opposes those misguided traditionalists. But certain people seem to loath the conservative so much they cannot resist making him the object of ire, where they are capable of not running off at 90 degrees to trash the hypothetical traditionalist, even if they point out what the pitfalls of traditionalism are.

Its the non manosphere related parts of the conservative that brings the vitriol. And therein is my chief issue with how that goes down. Spare me the word parsing and defining of words portion of the rebuttal as I say it comes from the left leaning parts of the commenters, from the socially liberal parts of them, this resentment that is barely contained. Or it comes from the de rigueur notion that there are so many layers and nuances to ones social political economic ideological religious or anti religious views that each man has his own ideology so complex only he has the answer…..all of those groups and or individuals seem to need trigger alerts when conservatives are mentioned.

Some cut to the chase and point to patriarchy as the more grounded term. I agree. But I doubt men’s ability to congeal on something without it generating a group of naysayers that rise up and attract attention because they are the shiny new thing.

In the end its a lot of energy expended.

Ive stated before, I am an example of a conservative traditionalist who you will not find a place where I need anyone to shim my resolve on red pill issues. I am not a piece of unobtainium. There are more that would identify as such.

I just realized the empathogasmic appeal of the word -Overcomer. I followed the trail Opus left when he mentioned the Saeed comments above. I stayed too long in that matrix. A woman would love to have the screen name Overcomer.

Sing with me: There is power, power ,empathogasmic power, in the precious name Overcomer….

**“Go through the books of the bible and look at the interaction between the married coupled”

A Complementarian wife would have NEVER let Peter just drop his business to follow that dirty man from Nazareth. What good thing ever came out of Nazareth? Their pastor would have admonished Peter for not listening to his wife and told him he was in sin for thinking about it. He was not loving her properly! Then when Peter left to follow Jesus over his Complementarian wife’s orders, he would have returned to find she had taken his business, trashed his reputation, and sunk his boats.

Marriage? Screw that shiet! No thanks. The words on that linked post to Saeed’s response to the allegations is more than enough to send shivers up any person’s spine. Truly, marriage should scare the crap out of every man out there. It’s entirely rational to be scared of such a con job of an institution.

Furthermore, a previous conviction has no bearing on a person’s guilt or innocence, for the specific crime at hand, it is for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. No need to add, but I will anyway, if this were a women being accused of adultery or even abuse, the idea of bringing up a previous time of sleeping around or being abusive would be met with ‘why have you not forgiven her’, you cannot hold her past sins against her as she has been saved…. blah blah blah.

While perhaps O/T re: “complementarianism”, I recently saw an interesting article that may tie to the “rebellion” part of the O/T. June Cleaver was mentioned upthread here… but it seems there’s another past girl ‘icon’ that some are STILL trying to remake and update: Barbie.

I am not exactly tech-savvy and have no idea how link – but I see you have provided a link, now. Spiritualsoundingboard is where I found the statement but that is (I now see) the blog of one Julie Ann who being very against Pastor Saeed (and so far as I can see just about any other Pastor – male Pastor that is) she must herself have found it elsewhere.

Julie Ann has as the heading to her blog a photograph of the inside of a pianoforte. Highly strung strings seems rather appropriate I would say from what I have so far read of her blog. This imminently wall-approaching woman is or has been sued by her former church for defamation and they sought or are seeking $500,000 in damages (I guess she doesn’t have it) so I commend Empath for braving her supporters and leaving a comment or two at Julie Ann’s blog.

I’ve been reading your posts for some time on this question of headship and authority within marriage. A thought for you shortly, but first note (as I’ve done previously) I am not a Christian, but am very interested in the institution of marriage, especially as it relates to a man’s subjugation.

As to “headship” in America in the year 2016, isn’t it wholly impossible for a man to assume this role if he subjects himself to the role of husband and/or father? Simply by signing up for marriage and fathering a child, because of the way our so-called “family” courts work, isn’t a man at once in the servant role? If a man, Christian or not, signs up for these roles, does he not show a lack of authority and strength from the very start. How could a woman, or society at large respect these men at all, let alone think of them as the head of anything?

I am saying, however, that if we can speak of traditionalism in a positive light in this context we could do the same with the suffix of the coined term tradcon. We could recognize a distinction.

“Conservative” is a one-word oxymoron. It can mean anything from a nostalgic sentimentalism that drafts some number of decades in progressivism’s wake, to the domestic iconoclasm of Chamber of Commerce policies such as open borders and free trade, to the foreign iconoclasm of Wilsonian interventionist do-gooding that often boils down to “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

At its best, “conservative” refers to Jacksonian cultural Americanism and Jeffersonian opposition to the speech police; but since it could as easily mean its own antonym, it means nothing.

Julia Ann is the kind of woman you would walk across to the other side of the road just to avoid. You don’t deal with such people, leave them well alone. They are vengeful and bitter and do not take kindly to someone being critical against them.

As evident of her banning anyone critical of women or supporting of the rights of men. She would no doubt hang men on nothing but the voice of a woman.

“Conservative” is a one-word oxymoron. It can mean anything from a nostalgic sentimentalism that drafts some number of decades in progressivism’s wake, to the domestic iconoclasm of Chamber of Commerce policies such as open borders and free trade, to the foreign iconoclasm of Wilsonian interventionist do-gooding that often boils down to “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

I think more fundamentally, conservatism, in a “liberal political order” (in the classical meaning of the word) is never a driving force, but always the foil. The driving force is whatever flavor of liberalism is leading at the time — whether that’s a kind of market liberalism, a kind of contemporary progressivism or what have you. The basic direction, politically, is increasing liberalism, because classical liberalism is the entire basis of the polity. Conservatism is merely a foil in the system that is aimed at modulating change — not preventing it, and also not rolling it back (the kind of upheaval caused by rollbacks is generally not “conservative”). This is why conservatism is essentially failing, and has been failing — it’s because no matter what it does, it acts as a foil to liberalism of one stripe or another — either neo-liberal free marketing and FP adventurism to secure markets, or domestic social progressivism (e.g., the way that the “conservative” stance on feminism has done a 180 in the past 40 years) — it is not a force in itself which stands for much, in itself, either than this or that position *within* liberalism. At best, it’s a foil — a kind of sweetener that helps the more progressive medicine go down, over time, with the masses.

Traditionalism is different (or at least can be), because it actually can advocate for something that is different from the entire liberal order. Conservatism can’t do that while remaining in the Overton Window, whereas traditionalism can. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of traditionalist dolts who are basically Overton Window conservatives crossdressed as traditionalists, but in theory traditionalism is not constrained by political viability in the way that conservatism is, the latter being primarily a foil or sweetener in what has been a fundamentally liberal political order from day one.

Shortly (a week after) Queer Marriage was made legal in England an acquaintance of mine whom I would describe as a Conservative and conservative – a man who had recently been awarded a First Class Honours degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (P.P.E.) from a reasonably distinguished academic institution (he already had an L.L.B. from Oxford University) voiced the opinion that no one could seriously argue the case against Gay Marriage. I was leaving the building and thus he did not have the opportunity to hear such a case. That – agreeing with the new status quo – is true conservatism.

Indeed — because defending the status quo *is* conservative — once it’s the status quo, overturning that creates the kind of upheaval that conservatism abhors in the first place. This is why it tends to defend the status quo once it is established, and precisely why it’s merely an accomplice in the larger liberal political order, and nothing more.

Here is the general consensus I got when I posted a somewhat level headed response to Saeed’s situation on the Facebook page of a somewhat popular radio/podcast host who has been supporting him since the beginning. I am shown as ‘Paul.jr Gonzales’. I posted one comment of my own, but I also got into it with some feminist when I responded to the second comment down (posted by one ‘Nichole Davis Huffaker’. Overall the response was pretty good, even from the women. Some of them agreed that we shouldn’t judge Saeed’s as guilty when we don’t know all of the information, but one woman in particular admitted she was just a non-believing feminist who was there to advocate.

Traditionalism is different (or at least can be), because it actually can advocate for something that is different from the entire liberal order. Conservatism can’t do that while remaining in the Overton Window, whereas traditionalism can

I disagree. I disagree, however, without the need nor the desire to battle back with any enthusiasm. In your first paragraph you absolutely can substitute traditionalism for conservatism and it works just fine. This debate when i am debating men early 40s and below especially is not unlike debating feminism with women only in the sense that i feel like I need to address the objections that i know are coming, in advance.

If I am wrong, then I must suppose that those pushing back all hold, issue by issue, point by point, positions about meta issues that would at one time or another have been called conservative opinions (if its even possible to not sidetrack into definitions and other inadvertent dissembling) according to what was once at least a well intended definition of conservatism. I am not trying to cling to some anachronism here. I am however not giving up on the idea that one can define their belief set and not have those in opposition be the arbiters of said definition when I suspect there is an element to that urge that comes from holding positions that are in direct opposition. And, that if those positions were dissected the way conservatism is, those positions would grease the skids of feminism even if vicariously.

For those who love the no true Scottsman fallacy, it certainly seems that it is an essential assertion that no true red pill man could possibly be conservative. Again, there is a reason for the stridency that has nothing at all to do with being a red pill purist.

Nova, what are those called who oppose the liberalcuckservative chimera? What do you call yourself if you had to check a box for ideology? Please do not say it begins with the prefix “neo”

I apologize to the host for my continual dragging of myself into this pedantic debate.

Julia Ann is the kind of woman you would walk across to the other side of the road just to avoid.

That is nest of vipers over there. Feminism at it’s “finest”. I commented, but it appears to have disappeared. It seems that that woman ban’s dissenters after labeling them “MRA”. I’m not saying this as an insult, but they really don’t have a clue.

“It seems that that woman ban’s dissenters after labeling them “MRA”.”

Well naturally, In my experience I’ve found that female moderators are FAR more ban happy than men are. And why? Because most of them don’t think. They “feel”.

The times I’ve been banned by males it’s due to (and I’m talking every instance here) some little white knight protecting the fair maiden. It makes silly boys like that feel like “big men” or something. It’s so ridiculous. I remember one time seeing this guy talking to this easily offended chick about how he was roaming the board making sure the women aren’t offended. I just laughed me head off after reading that.

There’s so much irony here. Even though I’m viewed as the “misogynist or “chauvinistic pig” I give women far more credit for being able to handle themselves online than a mangina who thinks he has to read every post to make sure the delicate little flowers aren’t offended by a chauvinistic neanderthal like me because they’re just so pathetically weak they can’t handle it. So white knights the hell out of them. He doesn’t see how sexist he’s being while calling me the sexist. That’s what’s so funny.🙂

I just followed Empath’s link over to ssb (spiritualsoundingboard.com).

Reading the comments brought out some very strong emotions in me and I quite literally had to walk away from my computer for awhile. It was like going through a wormhole to an alternate universe where only anti-matter exists. It took me back a decade to my own divorce and the feelings of utter frustration and inability to reason in the face of such unreasonable assertions, because a completely different perception of reality exists – and because this alternate reality is so cheerfully defended in most human institutions today, and sadly most churches.

Julie Ann, Overcomer, and a few others made me think of Lewis’s Law, except in reverse. Their comments are overwhelming proof of the points being made in the manosphere.

Empath, what is so baffling to me is that for creatures so hell-bent on finding empathy orgasms everywhere they turn, why are they so incapable of every empathizing with a man? I have not read enough of Dr. Helen Smith to know how much of her writings I agree with, but it is hard not to feel at least some small twinge of admiration for a woman that at least partially gets it.

I wonder what would happen if we went to that ssb site and published our own stories – how much empathy would we find. My guess is that we would find exceedingly strong outpourings of anti-empathy. By not passing immediate judgement on Pastor Saeed, and advocating punishment at least equal to (if not exceeding) the conditions he was just released from, I am sure we would be accused of being “enablers” to some kind of “abuse culture”.

@mrteebs I can appreciate those emotions, I have much of the same and I am five years post-divorce and just under ten years from my overnight trip to the clink for alleged DV; I beat the rap. All the typical canards are used over and over – porn-addict, abuser etc etc. and when I read about them and the ensuing accusations, assumptions, attacks and psychospeak all of the emotions flood back to me.

I was banned from Christian forums which is what ultimately led me here and drove me to write my own tiny blog. I was banned by women, and the “chaplain” of the site, a man, in contact with me directly on email was splitting hairs so fine it would take a super collider to measure the width in order to show me sympathy yet not offend the sistas, even if they didn’t know. i feel that that man may actually have eventually caved and seen the error of his ways. there was hope for that one.

Men indeed chase Lifts around the web. A well known (in the sphere) so called female red pill woman once, a few years back, invited me to write a guest post about abuse on her site. To her credit and I mean that sincerely, not only was her husband on cc for the communication, it was he that rendered the verdict, NO, Empath shall not make a guest post here. I was going to make my case against emotional abuse and all the other Kafka trapping that abuse makes available to women. The man has his own blog and though he seems to have decent order with his wife, he cancelled my abuse narrative. I respect him for leading his wife in this. I was not comfortable with why.

Mr Teebs

I was also also angry and fell into commenting more then once. Futile. Silly.

Finally, today I took my ten year old to a party at one of those chaotic places that serve pizza. I had occasion to make small talk with some of the moms. Im always the oldest person there with a ten year old ….I am 53.
One Catholic woman had a brochure about her teaching on marriage, it was sticking out of her purse. I waded into that ice water with women. I will make a post about how that went and the wisdom or lack of same in doing so. Short take…..maybe one person heard me.

Nova, what are those called who oppose the liberalcuckservative chimera? What do you call yourself if you had to check a box for ideology? Please do not say it begins with the prefix “neo”

I apologize to the host for my continual dragging of myself into this pedantic debate.

I am a reactionary traditionalist. I therefore am outside of the Overton Window, politically and socially, in our contemporary context. I live, of course, inside that Window, but my views are outside of it. I do not support the current order, in either its conservative or progressive form, which I see as two sides of the same coin. The order itself is the problem, from my perspective, and not the alignment *within* that order. That is reactionary (upsetting the current order) rather than conservative (preserving the current order, in order to at least preserve the perceived ‘good’ in it), and it’s reactionary in the direction of the specifically patriarchal Christian tradition. As this lies outside the Overton Window, I realize it is not a realistic political position, in terms of winning votes and elections in our current climate. But it’s my position nonetheless.

I also do not want a pointless debate, but just to state my own views, and as you know we’ve disagreed about this in the past. That’s fine — it isn’t the main point of this blog, although it does cause some rancor from time to time. I do typically find your posts hard to follow due to how they are often written, but that’s kind of inapposite, as the portion of your comment which I have quoted and responded to was, in itself, reasonably understandable and straightforward.

“Simply by signing up for marriage and fathering a child, because of the way our so-called “family” courts work, isn’t a man at once in the servant role?”

Legally Yes.

I’m not answering for our generous host here and suspect he probably won’t because there really is no good answer for your question. I’ll only offer my perspective, for whatever it’s worth from a single, never married Christian man. ‘Marriage’ as a legally enforceable contract no longer exist for men in western society. Legally does not exist… Marriage is however legally enforceable for women to the point it’s potentially extremely abusive to men in divorce and often in marriage. This abuse of husbands and fathers isn’t rare in fact its a likelihood.

Wives as a matter of legal position and clear precedence have all the authority over the husband, children, home!

If a man is in a position of “headship” in his home it’s only because he’s allowed to have that role by his wife. If she chooses, at anytime, he is no longer to have it he can be reduced to a visitor in the lives of his own children, thrown out of his home, forced to pay child support/alimony. If necessary this will be enforced at gunpoint. Most people who post this are well aware of this. I’ll summarize with two simply points.

1) “Biblical marriage” can only exist in practice IF a wife allows it or until she changes her mind.

2) It’s is absolutely ridiculous even obscene that men should have to mary under these circumstances.

Men who marry in this day and age are either ignorant or gamblers with tremendous risk tolerance. Some will win but ultimately most will lose.

Is interesting and I think I understand pretty well the various positions.

For me it comes down to how it plays out in actual conversations I have real life people.

Most of my friends read my blog, or my FB comments or statements I make and dismiss me as “really conservative” or “extreme right wing” or whatever. I usually don’t argue, because it’s no use.

The few who actually are interested in understanding all these different categories of “not liberal” are the ones who are most likely to at least understand why I reject the label “conservative” as a function of the way Nova describes it.

In the not too distant future, when the push for the next frontier of “marriage” (polygamy, or whatever) comes- “conservatives” will be saying “absolutely not! We must preserve the 2-person model of marriage for gays and straights ONLY as it has always been!”

when the push for the next frontier of “marriage” (polygamy, or whatever) comes

It’s already happening. Look at trashy media shows like “Sister Wives” and “Big Love”. Humorous to see them all depicted as like Artisanal Toad’s family — wholesome and normal — totally unlike the average polygamist family, which is a hive of dysfunction, poverty and prehistoric matriarchal chaos.

Posting a notice here in case you’re no longer following that old thread, to make sure you’ll see it. Short version: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn’t support your interpretation either, and I’m not disqualified from being an elder even if your interpretation was correct.

How would they describe their own venom if it where directed at themselves?

I am seriously considering giving them this opportunity by telling an abbreviated version of my own story over there, except reversing the roles so that “the abuser” appeared to be me and the story was being told from my ex-wife’s perspective. And then sit back and wait as the empathy poured forth and their venom toward “the abuser” piled on in utterly predictable fashion with finger-wagging and tongue-clucking at all the textbook examples.

At some point, when the bonfire flames were suitably fierce, I’d casually wade back in and mention that they had just burned my ex-wife at the stake – not me. Kind of like Nathan’s (actually, God’s) handling of David in 2 Samuel 12.

But I doubt any of them would have sufficient self-awareness to respond like David did. Because patriarchy. That, too, is utterly predictable.

Nonetheless, the hyper-drive scramble to rebuild the mound would be highly amusing, as would the smoke pouring out of the hamster wheel as the bearings disintegrated and caught fire.

In the not too distant future, when the push for the next frontier of “marriage” (polygamy, or whatever) comes- “conservatives” will be saying “absolutely not! We must preserve the 2-person model of marriage for gays and straights ONLY as it has always been!”

“Funny thing is, why did Paul limit that to only prostitutes? God didn’t prohibit extra-marital sex (except for adultery) in the Law and Paul only changed that to prohibit the use of prostitutes.”

Without acceding to your conclusions concerning extramarital sex, almost certainly Christ would have made Paul (and perhaps a couple other close apostles?) aware of the history of Israel and surrounding pagan nations related to the vast and entrenched institution of temple-prostitution in the ancient East and Near East. . . an idolatrous scam that God hates, and that Christ and his servants opposed, as recorded in the OT, over and over. Those Whore Temple systems destroyed family and fatherhood. This form of prostitution, still extant in subtle ways, goes far beyond mere sex/money exchange, to advance and embrace economic, political, trade, and religious elements. Quite the attractive prison! and v popular in the old days. These were goddess-worshipping ritual systems staffed (largely) by temple ‘priestesses’ who often were patronized by merchant classes of males. Kinda like a modern New Age Convention, except with open-boink featured.

Perhaps after Jeshua had terrorized Paul (and, say, Peter and John) with horror-stories about Jezzie and Ahab woodchipping the prophets of Israel at the local pagan temple, Paul decided well, hm, if THAT subject ever comes up again, it goes in the sermon.

Remember that Paul became an apostle on the road to Damascus. Unlike the other apostles, he never spent time with Jesus while Jesus was on Earth. Now, maybe Christ talked directly to him in a dream he never mentioned in his epistles, or during the one dream that he did mention (in which he was caught up into heaven and heard “things that cannot be told, which man may not utter”). But for the most part, he was drawing on his own knowledge of the Scriptures, rather than on listening to the words of Jesus.

Incidentally, I have seen some people claim that because of that, Paul’s writings shouldn’t be in the Scriptures, accorded the same respect and authority as, say, Peter’s and John’s writings. But that’s incorrect: the apostle Peter confirmed Paul’s writings as having authority in 2 Peter 3:15-16. “… just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (Emphasis added).

Not that I’m saying you think that. But I’ve seen the “Paul’s writings shouldn’t be in the Scriptures” idea come up more than once in the past few years, in discussions where you’d think people would know better. So I figured I might as well bring up the refutation before the idea ever gets trotted out.

Some also believe that in 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul was speaking of himself but would not identify it as pertaining to himself because of modesty. While the other Apostles were ordinary men, with Paul the Lord chose a superbly trained theologian and lawyer.

Thanks Dalrock for an excellent, succinct review and synthesis of “complementarianism”. It’s interesting to hear of the history and the main movers and shakers of this phenomenon, and how it links in with feminist ideals. Maybe Solomon was thinking of Rollo’s ideas of complemantarity (is that a word?), which I read about a long while back, but about which I don’t recall the details.

“Equal but different”? I’ve heard this before, but don’t really know what they’re driving at. Are they really saying, “The same but different”? Are they hedging their bets? Sitting on the fence? Equal in headship, but different in mental/emotional etc. makeup? Complemantarity “suggests both equality and beneficial differences”. They’re willing to expand on the differences to the extent of their being ‘beneficial’, but seem reluctant to further define their concept of ‘equality’, other than claiming that it is a “biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different.” Why don’t they expound these biblical ideas, if indeed they’re biblical? The bible has all the answers, so why don’t they expound them? What are they on about?

I think this even goes deeper than the legalities. Think about the modern act of proposal, where a man gets on one knee, expensive gift in hand, and grovels to his girlfriend for her acceptance. It’s all cringe-worthy!

Is it any wonder the sex stops after marriage? Is it any wonder husbands, ex-husbands, and fathers are the laughing stock of society?

I guess I think Dalrock has this headship thing backwards. Respect is earned or lost, not granted by God or tradition. How can society (even Christian society) or a woman respect a man who grovels on one knee as if he’s worshipping a higher power and then so willingly enters into such a one-sided contract? And then is stupid enough to father a child?

We SHOULD be laughing at these men. (I am one of them.) They don’t deserve an ounce of respect. In America in 2016 if a man wants his freedom, the fruits of his labor, and the respect of society he needs to stay single and fuck as many women as possible. Let’s face it, these are the men women want and society reveres.

Like it or not, marriage and family are a dead-end for men. Headship is not even possible. Surely Christian men can see that. Isn’t it time to adjust to the realities of the situation and do as the Romans do? Wishing that things were different and fighting reality will get you nowhere.

Empath, “Not All Conservatives Are Like That” wasn’t much of a refutation of anything 5 years or more ago when I first ran across it. Unlike a fine wine, time has not improved it.

It appears that you are pretty obviously triggered by criticism of “conservatives”, whatever they may be.

I can explan the different reactions but I don’t know if you will follow or not. There are high profile people such as Bill O’Reilly (I know, ok?), Rush LImbaugh (I know, ok?), Mohler (Yes, I know, ok?) and so forth who choose to call themselves “conservative”, yet who conspicuously cave in over and over again to various political agendas. Men don’t like to be betrayed. “Conservatives” have betrayed men over and over for decades. So many men now don’t much like “conservatives”, seeing them as traitors.

If promininent “conservatives” choose to use the label “traditionalist” for a few years, and continue to surrender to feminism, then you’ll see the same dislke for that label also.

PS: Your reply pretty much made my point all the better. Which “conservatism”? Which “tradition”? You cannot say.

In the last few years I’ve asked a number of men who call themselves “conservative” what they are conserving. Most of the time I get a blank stare. Sometimes I get a red-faced anger. One or two have given me a rueful look.

Novaseeker summed it up well. He has the problem of “which traditionalism?” but he’s still way ahead of the “conservatives”. ‘

Dalrock’s hammering on the CBMW is on point because of the word “Biblical” in their name. I wonder how long before they change that to, say, “Council on Spiritual Manhood and Womanhood?”

The use of ‘not all x are like that’ is characteristically relativism and therefore hypocrisy in disguise. It is used to selectively deny the possibility of all of all generalizations are pull the rug out from under the norms on which they are based,

Think about the modern act of proposal, where a man gets on one knee, expensive gift in hand, and grovels to his girlfriend for her acceptance. It’s all cringe-worthy!

Not an entirely modern act. The medieval ideal of courtly love was embodied by the Knight with his chaste love for his Lady Fair. The Knight fought for his Lady Fair as her champion, often not for sex or marriage, but in the hope that she might bestow her handkerchief upon him. Which he then clasped to his heart while he went off to die in the Crusades.

Men humbling themselves before women was also not unknown in the ancient world, though ancient peoples took a dimmer view of the practice. Hercules comes off as a fool when he does women’s work, helping Omphale with spinning her wool. So too Samson, who’s made a fool of by Delilah.

For those who love the no true Scottsman (sic) fallacy, it certainly seems that it is an essential assertion that no true red pill man could possibly be conservative.

For me, the answer to the question of “Should I identify with conservatives?” was answered by answering the question: How is it that many self-described conservatives vocally conserve the ancient practice of chivalry, but none of them support the antediluvian practice of patriarchy?

It appears that you are pretty obviously triggered by criticism of “conservatives”, whatever they may be.

Nope. Not at all. Every name you mentioned and every dynamic you described are people and things I can agree wholeheartedly with criticizing. I guess, as Nova said, I really must write in a manner that makes it difficult to understand. I do hope you are guarding yourself from not assuming these things because they are the easiest explanations for what motivates me…..in the same way women will assume our motives as we talk about men’s issues.

My concern is specifically about those people who are the most vehement when they pile on. Not that they are piling on someone or something that doesn’t deserve it, but that there is an element that are not traditional, not conservative, not reactionary traditionalists, not any thing that would have them agreeing with any of those descriptors.

Enough from me on this. I do not suffer the belief that if you just understood me it would mean you’d agree with me. However, agree or not, I do not think I am getting my point across effectively and therefore I need to just stop trying unless or until I can figure out better way to state my assertions.

@Robin Munn – I always thought that 2 Peter 3:15-16 indicated that many of his writings are very misinterpreted. “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction…” Because of what Peter said, we should understand that Paul may have had a different meaning to what we think he was saying.

I agree with you that Paul is specifically discussing Temple/Aphrodite prostitution in his letters to the Corinthians, since the city was a center for Aphrodite worship.

Also, it makes sense that the prostitution Paul is discussion has to do with religious-prostitution, since in context he starts to discuss how Christians should deal with food consecrated to other gods as well. Paul really is saying nothing different than what the OT had discussed on the subject. It is the sin of Balaam; don’t be led astray from the faith by those dirty women!

Just thought of the very beginning of Pilgrim’s Progress. The Pilgrim leaves his wife and children to go on his journey. Only later did John Bunyan write an additional book where the wife and children follow his steps as well.

Think of how well that would go over today. I remember reading it at my private school and was amazed no one considered him to be a bad husband and father for abandoning his family.

I understand it is allegorical but sometimes the allegorical can become the literal.

Carchamp1 @ 9:09 am:
“I guess I think Dalrock has this headship thing backwards. Respect is earned or lost, not granted by God or tradition.”

That isn’t Christian. We respect our employers because they’re our employers, our leaders because they’re our leaders, our husbands because they’re our husbands, God because he is God. The interplay of “respect goes up, kindness goes down” is a lost aspect of Christian theology (and was difficult at the best of times).

“We SHOULD be laughing at these men. (I am one of them.) They don’t deserve an ounce of respect.”

The Christian thing to do is support them however we can, not make life even harder for them. I cannot fault a man who wants kids for signing up for Marriage 2.0 because he’ll be on the chilamony hook anyway. Just so long as he goes in eyes open.

“Isn’t it time to adjust to the realities of the situation and do as the Romans do? Wishing that things were different and fighting reality will get you nowhere.”

We follow the real God. Better to be ruined than disobedient.

Also, adjusting to the modern situation would trigger a Biblical pattern: women embrace evil, men choose to join women in evil, God steps in to kick ass. You can see it best in Eden and Solomon’s wives. If men today refuse to sink to women’s modern depravity then we’ll eventually pull out of the cultural tailspin. If men take full, amoral advantage of the situation then Bad Things Will Happen.

Snowy said on February 1, 2016 at 7:38 am
“Equal but different”? I’ve heard this before, but don’t really know what they’re driving at. Are they really saying, “The same but different”? Are they hedging their bets? Sitting on the fence? Equal in headship, but different in mental/emotional etc. makeup? Complemantarity “suggests both equality and beneficial differences”. They’re willing to expand on the differences to the extent of their being ‘beneficial’, but seem reluctant to further define their concept of ‘equality’, other than claiming that it is a “biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different.” Why don’t they expound these biblical ideas, if indeed they’re biblical? The bible has all the answers, so why don’t they expound them? What are they on about?

Before I start, I want to point out to readers that complement means to make complete, but compliment means to praise or admire.

I don’t claim to be a complementarian, but I do think the Bible says that husbands and wives are equal but different.

[Gal 3:28 NASB] 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Therefore, all Christians are equal from God’s perspective.

[Eph 5:21-24 NASB] 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Here we see a husband is the head of his wife, and a wife ought to be subject to her husband. Therefore, husbands and wives are different. I believe this difference is beneficial.

In another forum, I am discussing the concept of unequally yoked in marriage. I say that a Christian husband and wife are equal but different. In an ox team, both oxen are expected to work together as equals to pull the load. However, they are different in that one ox is the lead ox. The other ox is trained to follow the lead ox, but if this ox balks or tries to go its own way, the task of pulling the load becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.

I’ve got to tell you that what you write used to make me feel very uncomfortable.

Not so much anymore.

My time has passed in being concerned about engaging with women. But I have so much I can do to help other younger men who have neither married nor divorced yet. And we know that none of them are having sex with “virgins” and most certainly not many are sexing up married women.

So there may be some hope…somewhere.

@Cane,

I’m with you…I used to think that being a conservative meant that we (meaning they) ain’t having none of this whacky modern crap, but the more I pay attention to what we (meaning they) purport, it seems that we (meaning they) rubber stamp so much shit that they are ghost writers in the story of rebellion and rejection of God’s Holy mountain.

EmpathologismMy concern is specifically about those people who are the most vehement when they pile on. Not that they are piling on someone or something that doesn’t deserve it, but that there is an element that are not traditional, not conservative, not reactionary traditionalists, not any thing that would have them agreeing with any of those descriptors.

Well, ok, why are you concerned? So there’s men who are not members of your group, and they say things that you don’t like, so what? What difference does it make?

Look, suppose that a group of MRA’s in a state decided to try to untilt family law by one hair, changing the default child custody post divorce from “mother takes all” to “joint custody. Ok, so they are picking a fight with the feminists, and the liberals (whatever THAT means) and the divorce industry to some extent. Also there will be plenty of blue-pill “traditional conservatives” to fight, because conservatives tend to want to preserve the status quo, even if it’s a bad status.

With me so far? Now suppose that the MRA’s found an unexpected ally in their reform fight: lesbians who’d been divorced. Should it make a difference? Should they insist on some sort of purity test for those who join them? Or should they just accept the help and press on to the goal?
Is the point to reform the law, or to strike a noble, manly, honorable pose? If I was one of those MRA’s I’d go out of my way to make the lesbians feel welcome and frankly would try to find one that was articulate to go testify before any legislative committee, because of the designated-special-snowflake status. But I’m me, and not you. So that’s why I’m asking: would you accept such help, or reject it?

Because you seem to be saying that some critics of conservatives have no right to criticize, as their motives are somehow “impure”, that only members of the conservative club really have a right to say anything. If that’s not what you mean, well, ok. If that’s what’s on your mind, I gotta ask – why?

Dalrock is not an AFC, in fact this site is where a chump can come to wise up. I’m quite sure Mr. Dalrock gets respect from his wife and biblically Christian wives are told to respect their husbands. Our problem is with a church that has failed to teach women their biblical obligations. Also most of the men here are well acquainted with Game and hold women to standards.

Biblical Marriage is the only sexual option for a man who is serious about his faith. If you don’t believe in eternal life, heaven or hell then we can’t offer you any advice here. That being said I have absolutely know idea why men who are non-believers even consider marriage. Nothing is denied a man in the secular world outside of marriage including sex, cohabitation, children. I cannot recommend this as its sin by biblical standards, however neither can I recommend marriage.

We’re at a point in society thats bordering on insanity. Historically marriage has been the very basis of every society in the history of civilization. Pumping and dumping sluts may provide men with temporal release and entertainment, “enjoy the decline” is bantered around the manosphere a lot these days. Long term I deeply suspect the decline is on the way and will not be in the least bit enjoyable for anyone very long.

AR, everyone is conserving something. For some, they are conserving their self image of not seeming to want to conserve anything. Its ok to embrace one’s inner pedestrian. Its also ok to subscribe to hippy, beatnik, or hipster version X point Oh, so long as folks know there is nothing new under the sun. Gosh folks hate that part.

a) Groups operating within the Overton Window cannot change its shape or direction
b) Groups that hitch their ship to the Overton Window will inevitably be “dragged along a path not of their choosing” (*quoting Hayek).

This was the driving force behind why Hayek famously wrote “Why I am Not a Conservative”, a friendly criticism of sorts from a libertarian. He was ultimately proven correct in that the overall trajectory of every election from 1960’s onwards has been leftward tilt, such that what passes for a “radical conservative” viewpoint today was quite moderate just a couple decades ago.

I get what you’re saying to some extent, but, get real, there is NO Biblical marriage anymore. The states took over marriage in the last century. The idea that a woman, anyone really, is going to respect a man who bows down to her for the proposal and submits to modern “marriage” and “family” law is fantasy. He’ll get sand kicked in his face. This is universal.

I really think today’s Christians are being led astray by the label used for what is nothing more than state-sponsored slavery of men. You can call this “marriage” if you want, but it’s not. Surely you get this point. Anyone claiming Christian men need to submit to modern “marriage” and “family” court to fulfill a Godly purpose is misguided. The truth is there is NO way in America today to live in a Christian marriage. It’s impossible. Headship in the era of happy wife, happy life? Absurd.

Reading about what is happening in the church and in the world as related to marriage does cause discouragement. For the Christian man though there is always hope for a Biblical marriage as Christ is reigning. I say this as a single man myself who at this point would still like to find a wife. What do you all think about the following statistical studies about divorce rates? While it is unknown if those in the statistics are following the Biblical headship model the statistics do give some support to the view that marriages are staying together.

For some, they are conserving their self image of not seeming to want to conserve anything. Its ok to embrace one’s inner pedestrian. Its also ok to subscribe to hippy, beatnik, or hipster version X point Oh, so long as folks know there is nothing new under the sun. Gosh folks hate that part.

Sorry, rabbit trail not interesting. You’re not the first self-labeled conservative who can’t explain what is to be conserved, though, and surely not the last.

Consider taking Nova’s idea of “reactionary traditionalism” as an alternative.

If you search this site you will find that Dalrock already took apart Shaunti Feldhan’s numbers.
Not sure about TGC’s numbers, but frankly I don’t trust the people at TGC to even understand elementary probability and statistics anymore.

Any divorce numbers will be simplistic; say that the evangelical divorce rate is 38% of marriages fail in the first 10 years. There won’t be any breakdown as a rule regarding such things as “how often couple went to church”, so these numbers can be deceptive.

Anecdotally, I will speculate that people who marry in their early to mid 20’s, who pick a church that doesn’t allow women to preach or hold any ruling office, who go to that church regularly and participate in activities…those people would be less likely to divorce. And that’s just from a purely social aspect, mind you.

“I get what you’re saying to some extent, but, get real, there is NO Biblical marriage anymore.”

I have a biblical marriage. I instructed my wife on the importance of headship and it made sense to her and she’s on board. When she slips up, we talk about it. She understands and appreciates how my steadiness and perspective keep her grounded. It doesn’t hurt that her n was one and he was a schlub, but there are a lot of schlubs out there these days.

If you can master your emotions, you’ll stand out.

“The states took over marriage in the last century. The idea that a woman, anyone really, is going to respect a man who bows down to her for the proposal and submits to modern ‘marriage’ and ‘family’ law is fantasy.”

This is true. Do not bow down. I often kid her about how she proposed to me, which always earns a look of delighted objection. The man submits to God alone, not the marriage.

Or I can turn to the Roman church where a recent Pope pretty much pedestalized all women in an encyclical. Please, I’m not picking a religious fight here, I’m just going by what I can read for myself.
—Anonymous Reader

Despite your denial, I believe you are picking a religious fight here. First, it’s not the “Roman church” it’s the Universal* Church. Second, I doubt you ever bothered to read and understand the encyclical to which you refer.

If you seek to find a congregation of perfect people, you are going to be disappointed. Should you find them, they won’t let you in! So you might do well to join the Church that Jesus built on the rock of Peter. Sorry to disappoint you but although Jesus chose him, Peter wasn’t impeccable nor did he always speak with the best possible words.

* the word “catholic” means “universal”. The Greek gods were for the Greeks, the Egyptian gods for the Egyptians, the Roman gods for the Romans, etc. But the One True God and the Church founded by Jesus the Christ is for all mankind, it is universal–hence the name. The habit of referring to the Church as ‘Roman’ began with the Tudor monarchs of England who, after forming their phoney substitute, wished to impugn the True Church as something foreign and un-English. Of course, the Catholic Church had been in England long before there were Tudors instituted on the throne–her bishops wrote the Magna Carta–so one must ask, who’s institution is really the un-English one.

MichaDespite your denial, I believe you are picking a religious fight here.

Of course you do, and if you believe it, why, it must be true, right Micha?

First, it’s not the “Roman church” it’s the Universal* Church.

The word “catholic” and the name “Catholic” may be synonyms to you, but they aren’t synonyms in reality. Just for a start, the split between the Roman church and the church in Constantinople is a matter of historic fact, and the subsquent centuries have not changed that fact. No Pope has any authority over any Eastern Orthodox (or Greek Orthodox, or Serbian Orthodox, etc.) hierarchy. The men of Mount Athos don’t bow to anyone in Rome. So the Roman church is not universal, if it were then the Orthodox would submit to Rome.

Second, I doubt you ever bothered to read and understand the encyclical to which you refer.

Just for a start, what part of “mutual submission” and “new Feminism” is difficult to understand, dearie?

Third: Actions speak louder than words:

I personally know several Roman Catholic men who have been frivorced by their wives. That is to say, their wives divorced them not on any grounds such as adultry or abandoment but rather on “I’m not HAAAaaaapy” grounds, and in each case the woman was able to buy an annullment without much difficulty, although one may have had to go bishop-shopping to get the job done. What percentage of Catholic marriages end in divorce? What percentage of divorces are filed by women? How many annullments were granted to frivorcees in North America last year vs. the rest of the world, Micha? Actions. Clear, obvious, actions.

The Roman church may not be as feminized as some others, but the Female Imperative clearly has the upper hand. That was my point. Now, run along, I’m sure there are plenty of other blogs you can troll for flames.

“The truth is there is NO way in America today to live in a Christian marriage. It’s impossible. Headship in the era of happy wife, happy life? Absurd.”

What you’re stating is simply not true, as we’ve already pointed out “biblical marriage” exists as long as the wife allows it and the husbands leads it. This is a precarious, risky undertaking, not for the faint of heart. Most Christian men who try it will either end up divorced (and possibly destroyed as a result) or trapped in a matriarchy, sexless marriage, with a fat wife or all of the above. Some however will win with a happy life-long marriage, family etc. The later is probably less than 20% of the whole but it’s certainly possible. I know some of these people. Poor odds? Absolutely but certainly not impossible.

All of the above being said I’ll probably never try it but maybe. I’ve met and dated single women/ never married/no kids/don’t want kids in their late 30’s early 40’s. These women are fairly scarce but they are out there. They tend to be career women with money, suits me fine. Tend to be fit, into travel, fashion and artsy BS. Add two carefully crafted pre-nups and me and my net-worth would be protected. These women only date men who don’t have/want kids, men with money, height etc. I find them online and seem to meet the standards of a few. Meanwhile I’m finding the older I get the more content I am just being alone.